Whose story is it?
The literal translation of Hemingway & Gellhorn is Hemingway and Gellhorn. But why not Gailhorn and Hemingway? (In order of sequence, Gellbhorn is also first) The translation has these versions: Hemingway's Biography, Battlefield Beacon Love, Hemingway's Love History, and the Taiwanese translation is Love Shanghai Mingwei.
The biography of Hemingway is naturally about Hemingway, but in fact, the time span and story of the film are far from being able to summarize his life and it is difficult to call it a biography. The love history of Hemingway is also the same; Human friendship; the only action subject who loves Shanghai Mingwei is Gailhorn.
Gailhorn was a little allergic to accidentally washing his hands with dirty water in China, and he had the following dialogue:
Hemingway: You want to suffer.
You are asking for hardship.
Gellhorn: Should be, I'm in love with you.
Indeed, falling in love with you is so.
In fact, I think the film is from the perspective of Gailhorn, and I regard this story as a review of a modern woman's treatment of a friendship in her life-during this period she found her lifelong love and was willing to devote everything to it. While exploring the value of individual life in his career, he also endured the helplessness and pain brought by modern love.
He is not perfect
Halfway through the film, I was worried that I would be disappointed-Hemingway was portrayed as a perfect man. He is full of talents in fishing and hunting; he is an upright man who wants to go to the front line to fight against fascism; he has a strong temperament, and he has the appropriate wisdom and bravery when pursuing women, and he is considerate and careful to Gailhorn. Timely care and gentleness; he has become a sign of masculinity... (In a word, he is smoking hot.) But the perfect protagonist is inevitably too heroic. For a moving movie, I would expect more.
Then Hemingway began to expose his weaknesses, or fragility and pitifulness, and I began to feel relieved—fortunately, he was not perfect.
Viewing Modern Love from Sociology
I have been reading this book for a while. Why Love Hurts by Eva Illouz. Maybe it can be translated into "Why love hurts so much". Although the name sounds a bit vulgar, but in fact this book is an academic work-the author tries to explain from a sociological perspective the reason why modern love is so irritating, and everyone feels so painful.
As the author explained, about the purpose of this book: "Ultimately, my aim is to do to love what Marx did to commodities: to show that it is shaped and produced by concrete social relations; to show that love circulates in a marketplace of unequal competing actors; and to argue that some people command greater capacity to define the terms in which they are loved than others."
Ultimately, my goal is, as Marx said about commodities—he explained that commodities are shaped and produced by specific social relationships; I said about love—to show that love is based on unequal competition. Circulated in the market; and some of them are more capable than others to define the way they are loved
Roughly speaking, before Marx, people’s attitude towards the poor was: "Because of lack of ability or laziness, they deserve to be poor." After Marx, we have realized that most poverty stems from institutional inequities and systems. Sexual economic exploitation-some children have fewer opportunities to change their lives than others since they were born-this is a social problem, not anyone's fault.
And the author, Illouz, she hopes to explain-everyone will experience pain from love-this is also a social phenomenon, which can be analyzed from a sociological point of view-not just the fragility of the individual's soul , "Learn to love (self-love, self-esteem)", or "get rid of the scum constitution" to explain or solve, that is, the injury of love is not only internal, but also external to the individual, which is uncontrollable. The author also defined the "love" she mentioned-"modern love". It is not that the previous generations never suffered from love, but that in the modern context ( political emancipation, secularism, rationality, individualism, moral pluralism, equality; political emancipation, secularism, rationality, individualism, moral pluralism, equality; political emancipation, secularism, rationality, individualism, moral pluralism, equality ) , People have a new standard for choosing a spouse-to build a new system for love. And this system has brought different, perhaps even more intense, pains to modern people. Therefore, the author is more like trying to interpret the larger proposition of "modernity" from the perspective of sociology through the entry point of love. ( Like other sociologists, I view love as a privileged microcosm through which to understand the processes of modernity. )
(Btw, although the social background mentioned in the author's book and all the cases in the book are based on "Western society", but in today's globalization, I believe that we are generally concerned about the "modernity" mentioned in it. Deeply touching. In addition, I really think these background introductions are necessary)
We are proof of each other's personal worth
So why does love hurt so much?
In summary, in modern society, because of greater social mobility, people enjoy greater freedom-the criteria for mate selection are mixed with emotions, economics and many other factors, and to a large extent is subjective-love has become our own value The embodiment and proof.
For men, the expression of masculinity is always an important part of their personal values and social status.
Authority in the household, the capacity to earn a wage in a non-servile independent way, and the capacity to form meaningful bonds in voluntary associations, taverns, and clubs that effectively excluded women are traditionally the three pillars of masculinity.
(1) Authority in the family, (2) the ability to earn wages in a dignified and independent way, (3) and connect with others in voluntary organizations, pubs and clubs (places that exclude women) Ability-the three pillars of traditional masculinity.
Serial sexuality is attractive to men of all classes because, if access to women is restricted, it functions as a sign of the man's status – of victory over other men. Male competitive- ness, validation, and status were channeled through the realm of sexuality . For men, sexuality was a mark of status in terms of the capacity to compete with other men in securing the attention of the female sex: "Women provide heterosexual men with sexual validation, and men compete with each other for this." Further, men transferred to sex and sexuality the control they had formerly held in the household, and sexuality became the realm within which they could express and display their authority and their autonomy.
Continuous sex is very attractive to men of all walks of life, because if access to women is restricted, it will become a sign of a man's status-a sign of victory over other men. The competitiveness, degree of recognition and status of men are dominated by sex. For men, sex is a sign of status, and they can compete with other men to get women’s attention: “Women provide sexual value to heterosexual men, and men will compete with each other for this.” In addition, men put them in The control right in the family is transferred to sex and sexuality, and sex becomes an area where they can express and show their authority and autonomy.
His masculinity
(1) On the one hand, it was Hemingway's stage fright; on the other hand, it was Gailhorn, who was caught off guard and was invited to the stage. She spoke brilliantly and received more enthusiastic applause than Hemingway. Hemingway frowned and turned his head and left? ? ? Later, I scrambled with a critic at the dinner table because the latter wrote a book review that "his literary talent can't conceal his fear of losing his masculinity".
(2) After finishing the report on the war in Spain and China, Gailhorn wanted to go to Finland next and continue to fight. The reporter—Hemingway, the man who wrote the novel, who actually had countless choices, robbed him from behind. Her job.
Hemingway: I got some hefty shoes to fill. You've done some excellent work.
I have to work hard too, you have done so well.
Gellhorn: Are you trying to make it impossible for me to love you?
Do you have to force me not to love you anymore?
(3) Gailhorn left, and Hemingway found his new partner.
Hemingway: You can say that you're my kind of girl.
You are my type.
Mary: What kind of girl is this?
What type do you like?
Hemingway: The class that takes care of a man. That encourages. That supports it.
The kind of caring and encouraging women who support men.
When Hemingway met Gailhorn for the first time, his charm was his high spirits and informality. And as Gailhorn’s career gradually became famous (and perhaps the reason why they entered married life), his masculinity was threatened-he became cringe, looking for someone who could make him feel noble. The women who "thought" him.
Hemingway said when arguing with Gailhorn: "I made you!" He did provide her with a higher platform and necessary spurs when Gailhorn started her career. In fact, giving is also a kind of right and control. The superiority that the giver obtains in the process is the recognition and affirmation of its higher identity value. De Beauvoir also mentioned this in her "Second Sex": "The ability to help others is also a way to master women, and men can gain the upper hand.
I fully believe that Hemingway and Gailhorn are soul mates-there is no similarity or difference between people. They probably have a similar care for the writing career and the destiny of mankind-this is enough for them to be in each other Ignite each other in their lives, the so-called soul mates, twin flames. So when it comes to talking about how unilateral, whoever makes someone—companion, even for a short period of time, is not an easy friendship. Nevertheless, which relationship does not involve checks and balances of power?
Her modern love story
Obviously said at the beginning, I think this is the story of Gailhorn, but I have been writing about Hemingway. But this is probably not a contradiction-it was Hemingway from Gailhorn’s perspective. At first she only saw a high-spirited writer. Later, she discovered his gentleness and ideals, and finally he was perfected into a complete person-naive and fragile. , Panic, selfish, machismo...
At the end of the film-
Gellhorn: I do not see myself as a footnote, in the life of another person.
I don't think of myself as a footnote in another person's life.
She was a war correspondent and a fighter who fought for the peace of mankind, but in the 30th year after Hemingway's death, she could not exist as an independent personality in public view.
They met in 1936-they could afford the term "modern love". During the two world wars, the era when human beings used industrial weapons to slaughter each other—the Western ideals of freedom, fraternity, and humanity were fundamentally shaken, and civilization and ideas were in crisis. The same is true for gender relations. In addition, the first feminist movement began in the second half of the 19th century and lasted until the beginning of the 20th century. This means that in the age when most women in the Western world had not yet obtained the right to vote and decent work, Gailhorn went to the battlefield, where she explored the realization of modern women's self-worth in the dual tension of love and career.
View more about Hemingway & Gellhorn reviews
